


n/U 



Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive 
in 2010 with funding from 
Tine Library of Congress 



Iittp://www.archive.org/details/sirgeorgearthurh01sage 



"TTTTFTTTT OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF HISTORY AND 
58 r POLinCAL AND ECONOMIC SCIENCE IN QUEEN'S 
UNIVERSITY, KINGSTON, ONTARIO, CANADA- 



NO. 28, JULY, 1918 



SIR GEORGE ARTHUR AND HIS ADMIN- 
ISTRATION OF UPPER CANADA. 



BY 

WALTER SAGE 



Th« Jack&on Press, Kingston 



Monognipt) 



BULLETIN OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF fflSTORY AND 
POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC SCIENCE IN QUEEN'S' cr 
UNIVERSITY, KINGSTON, ONTARIO, CANADA, 

No. 1, Tbt Colonial Policy of Chatham, by W. L. Grant. 

No. 2, Canada and the Most Favored Nation Treaties, by 
O. D. Skelton. 

No. 3. The Status of Women in New England and New France^ 
by James Douglas. 

No. 4, Sir Charles Bagot: An Incident in Canadian Parlia- 
mentary History, by J. L. Morison. 

No. 5, Canadian Bank Inspection, by W. W. Swanson. 

No. 6, Should Canadian Cities Adopt Commission Govern- 
ment, by William Bennett Munro. 

No. 7, An Early Canadian Impeachment, by D. A. McArthur. 

No. 8, A Puritan at the Court of Louis XIV, by W. L. Grant. 

No. 9, British Supremacy and Canadian Autonomy: An Ex- 
amination of Early Victorian Opinion Concerning 
Canadian Self-government, by J. L. Morison. 

No. 10, The Problem of Agricultural Credit in Canada, by 
H. MicheU. 

No. 11, St. Alban in History and Legend: A Critical Examina- 
tion; The King and His Councillors: Prolegomena to 
a History of the House of Lords, by L. F. Rushbrook 
Williams. 

No. 12, Life of the Settler in Western Canada Before the War 
of 1812, by Adam Shortt. 

No. 13, The Grange in Canada, by H. Michell. 

No. 14, The Financial Power of the Empire, by W. W. Swanson. 

No. 15, Modem British Foreign Policy, by J. L. Morison. 

No. 16, Federal Finance, by O. D. Skelton. 

No. 17, Craft-Gilds of the Thirteenth Century in Paris, by F. 
B. Millett. 

No. 18, The Co-operative Store in Canada, by H. Michell. 

No. 19, The Chronicles of Thomas Sprott, by Walter Sage. 

No. 20, The Country Elevator in the Canadian West, by W. C. 
Clark. 

No. 21, The Ontario Grammar Schools, by W. E. Macpherson. 

No. 22, The Royal Disallowance in Massachusetts, by A. G. 
Dorland. 

No. 23, The Language Issue in Canada; Notes on the Language 
Issue Abroad, by 0. D. Skelton. 

No. 24, The Neutralization of States, by F. W. Baumgartner. 

No. 25, The Neutralization of States, by F. W. Baumgartner. 

No. 26, Profit-Sharing and ProduiJers* Co-operation in Canada, 

by H. MicheU. 
No. 27, Should Maximum Prices Prevail? by W. C. Clark. 

No. 28, Sir George Arthur and His Administration of Upper 
Canada, by Walter Sage. 



SIR GEORGE ARTHUR AND HIS ADMINISTRATION OF 
UPPER CANADA. 



THE last Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada before the 
Union of 1841 was Sir George Arthur. To most Cana- 
dians of to-day he is little more than a name, but still he played 
an important part in the stirring events of our political life 
fourscore years ago. He lacked the picturesqueness of that 
extraordinary personage, his predecessor in office. Sir Urancis 
Bond Head, and he was overshadowed completely by both Lord 
Durham to Poulett Thomson, better known as Lord Syden- 
ham, who were in succession as Governors-General placed in 
authority over him. None the less he lives in Canadian history 
as the man who refused to reprieve Lount and Matthews, and 
who made common cause with the Family Compact against the 
Reformers. Although nominally he was Lieutenant-Governor 
of Upper Canada from his appointment in 1837 until the Act 
of Union went into force, his real term of office lasted only a 
little more than a year and a half, from March 23rd, 1838, 
until November 22nd, 1839. After that time he was directly 
subordinate to Sydenham. During that brief period Sir 
George Arthur proved himself an energetic if not always mer- 
ciful governor. 

It was unfortunate that Arthur come to Upper Canada at 
a time when Mackenzie's rebellion had just been crushed and 
when party feeling was still running very high. Sir Francis 
Bond Head left Toronto on the very day that Sir George 
Arthur arrived and so the new Lieutenant-Governor was un- 
able to obtain much information from his predecessor. There 
is reason to believe, none the less, that Sir Francis put in a 
good' word for his old friends the Family Compact and that 
Arthur from the beginning of his term of office favoured that 
party. In his first official despatch to Lord Glenelg dated 
March 29th, 1838, Sir George makes mention of the "large 
preponderating party looking to the Executive Government to 
put down treason by energetic measures," as opposed to ''the 
•party styling themselves Reformers" who were "hoping for 



/^^ ^S^So 



the most lenient course." * These phrases, written when 
Arthur had been only about a week in Upper Canada, stamp 
the new governor at once as an opponent of reform. If fur- 
ther proof is needed it can readily be found in Arthur's reply 
to a congratulatory address from seven hundred and fifty 
citizens of Toronto upon the occasion of his arrival in that 
city. In that address reference was made to the fact that "in 
the promotion of public order, and the adoption of measures 
for the pacification of the country" Arthur would have "the 
prompt and energetic support of the loyal, patriotic and con- 
stitutional reformers of the Province." In his reply Sir 
George Arthur regretted that "any portion of the inhabitants 
of this city should have felt it necessary at the moment to 
present themselves under the character of reformers, as a 
distinct class of the people of this Province." Such a state- 
ment was not likely to secure for Sir George Arthur the whole- 
hearted support of all the well-disposed citizens of Toronto. 
The execution of Lount and Matthews further alienated the 
more moderate men in the Province. 

When Sir Francis Head arrived in Toronto he was greeted 
by placards which designated him as "a Tried Reformer." t 
When Sir George Arthur was appointed to succeed him the 
London Atlas, on March 3rd, 1838, enquired, "What will the 
inhabitants of Upper Canada think of the appointment of the 
Governor of a penal Colony to rule over a province of free- 
men?" $ As a matter of fact, Arthur was an improvement on 
Head but he was never able to shake off his past traditions or 
to obtain as Lord Durham and Lord Sydenham did, a real 
insight into Upper Canadian conditions. Durham, it is true, 
in his Report is not nearly so successful when he deals with 
the upper-province as when he portrays the miseries of Lower 
Canada, but he understood the situation there better than 
Head or Arthur ever did. Sydenham's ideas as to the work- 
ings of Responsible Government did not harmonize with those 
of Lord Elgin, but he never would have argued against it, as 
Arthur did, on the grounds that it was demanded by the Re- 

*Arthur to Glenelg 29 March, 1838. 

tHead's Narrative, p. 32. 

JCanadian Archives, Q 406, Pt. I, p. 175. " 



Gift 



formers. From start to finish of his term of office in Upper 
Canada Sir George Arthur was unable to forget his experience 
in British Honduras where he quelled a negro insurrection and 
in Van Diemen's Land, now Tasmania, where he was called 
upon to rule a convict settlement. Above all he was a military 
officer, and as such was none too ready to season justice with 
mercy. He was the last of that series of Lieutenant-Governors 
of Upper Canada who were also military officers and he pos- 
sessed the defects of his qualities. Stern, unbending, narrow- 
minded, but entirely honest he was totally unable to see his 
opponent's point of view. 

By training Sir George Arthur was a soldier. Before he 
ever embarked on his administrative career as governor of one 
colonial dependency after another he had served many years 
in the army. Born in 1784, the youngest son of John Arthur 
of Norley House, Plymouth, George Arthur entered the army 
at the age of twenty. He saw service in Italy, Egypt — where 
he was wounded at Rosetta in 1807 — and also in Sicily in 1808. 
He took part in the ill-fated Walcheren Expedition of 1809 
and seems to have distinguished himself in it, since we read 
that he was thanked in general orders and also that he received 
the freedom of the city of London. After being military sec- 
retary to Sir George Don, the governor of the island of Jersey, 
Arthur, in 1812, became a major in the Seventh West India 
Regiment. We next find him in Jamaica as assistant quarter- 
master-general of the forces on that island. 

In 1814 George Arthur became Lieutenant-Governor of 
British Honduras "with the rank of colonel on the staff." * 
This office, which was both civil and military, Arthur 
held until 1822, during which time he suppressed a serious 
revolt of the slave population. His despatches on the subject 
of slavery we are told attracted the attention of the great 
abolitionist, William Wilberforce. In 1822 Colonel Arthur 
returned to England on leave of absence in order to furnish 
the British Government with additional information on the 
subject of the emancipation of slaves. It was during this stay 
in England that he was in 1824 appointed Lieutenant-Governor 



D. N. B., Vol. I, p. 604. 



of Van Diemen's Land and at the same time commander of the 
military forces in that penal colony. 

For twelve years George Arthur grappled with the ter- 
rible conditions existing in that most unfortunate island. The 
transportation system, one of the worst blots in British colo- 
nial history, was then at its height and its evils w^re only too 
apparent. The Select Committee on Transportation appointed 
by the British Parliament in its Report submitted in 1838, 
having outlined the unspeakable conditions existing at Norfolk 
Island, goes on to make the following statement regarding Van 
Diemen's Land: 

"Your Committee will not lengthen this report" by describ- 
ing the penal settlements of Van Diemen's Land, where the 
severity of the system is as great as, if not greater than, that 
at Norfolk Island, where culprits are as reckless, if not more 
reckless, commissing murder (to use the words of Sir George 
Arthur) "in order to enjoy the excitement of being sent up to 
Hobart Town for trial, though aware that in the ordinary 
course they must be executed within a fortnight after ar- 
rival.' "t 

As Lieutenant-Governor of such a colony Colonel Arthur 
was called upon to act with firmness and often with severity. 
His biographer in the Dictionary of National Biography, Sir 
Alexander John Arbuthnot, K.C.S.I., claims that the object of 
Arthur's appointment was "the introduction of an improved 
system" of treatment for the convicts. Arthur sought to adopt 
"a middle course between the extreme severity of the system 
which would make transportation simply deterrent and the 
over-indulgence of the system which aimed at reforming the 
convict by gentler treatment. He held that it was possible to 
make transportation a punishment much dreaded by criminals 
whilst offering every facility for reform to those who were not 
hardened in crime ; but he entertained no quixotic expectations 
of frequent reformation." t It will be seen from this quota- 
tion that Arthur believed in the transportation system in a 
modified and "improved" form. In this he ran counter to the 



fReport of Transportation Committee, 1838. Quoted in Molesworth's 
Speeches, Appendix, p. 465. 

JD. N. B., Article on Sir George Arthur. 



wishes of the colonists who desired that an end be put to the 
abomination. Arthur's biographer regrets that "the colonists 
and their friends in England were bent on putting an end to 
the transportation system and their views ultimately pre- 
vailed." 

This difference of opinion between Arthur and the colo- 
nists furnished W. L. MacKenzie with some of his choicest bits 
of invective against teh new Lieutenant-Governor of Upper 
Canada. In his Gazette, MacKenzie prefaced a long series of 
excerpts from the newspapers of Van Diemen's Land on the 
occasion of Arthur's recall with the sarcasm: "Such creden- 
tials cannot fail to increase the loyalty of the happy Canadians. 
0, the blessings of Colonial Dependence!!!" * 

These excerpts clearly show that there was a considerable 
body of colonial opinion in Van Diemen's Land opposed to the 
policies of Governor Arthur. The following from the Hobart 
Town Neivs may be taken as fairly typical. As a matter of 
fact it is quite moderate in tone in comparison with some of 
the other invectives against Arthur. 

"It was with feelings of the most sincere satisifaction, Vv^e 
announced in our last number the arrival of the 'good ship' 
"Elphinstone", from England, bringing the very gratifying 
intelligence of the recall of Colonel George Arthur after an 
administration of twelve years ; during the whole of which 
long period the people have been rendered wretched, unhappy, 
discontented and miserable by the misrule of his govern- 
ment. . . ." t 

Of course, no one would look into the pages of MacKenzie's 
Gazette to get a favourable impression of Sir George Arthur, 
but a perusal of these excerpts shows that the dissatisfaction 
against Arthur was widespread. The Launcetown Advertiser 
states^ that, '"Throughout the whole period of his government 
the military have been placed in too prominent a position. 
Lieutenants and Ensigns, fresh from the frolics of Chatham, 
have been turned into justices of the peace and the whole ad- 
ministration of the colony has been pipe-clayed into a service 



*Canadian Archives, Q 406, Pt. I, p. 226. 
flbid. 



of an amphibious, half -military, half-civil complexion." t The 
Colonial Times quite frankly lays it down that "A worse Brit- 
ish Governor never ruled during the present century."* This 
is strong language, written in the heat of the moment, but 
when sufficient discount is made for hot temper the fact re- 
mains that Sir George Arthur made a number of enemies in 
Van Diemen's Land. 

To a certain extent Arthus was not to blame since he was 
the victim of circumstances. He was forced by the nature of 
his office to uphold the abominable system of transportation 
and his position as commander-in-chief of the military forces 
on the island made him a military as well as a civil governor 
of a penal colony. But on the other hand, he was by nature an 
aristocrat with but little democratic feeling. He mistrusted 
popular government and he had to keep down a discontented 
population of whom over one-third were convicts. Sir Wil- 
liam Molesworth in his speech on transportation delivered in 
the British House of Commons on May 5th, 1840,** gives the 
following statistics culled from Sir George Arthur's de- 
spatches from Van Diemen's Land in 1834. "Its population in 
1834 did not exceed 40,000, of whom 16,000 were convicts, 
1,000 soldiers, and 23,000 free inhabitants; what proportion 
of the latter had been convicts it is impossible to say. In this 
small community the summary convictions amounted to about 
15,000 in the year in question, amongst which there were 
about 2,000 for felony, 1,200 for misdemeanour, 700 for as- 
saults, and 3,000 for drunkenness. Eleven thousand of these 
convictions were of convicts who are summarily punished for 
all offences to which the penalty of death is not attached." 
With such a turbulent population to control it is no wonder 
that Sir George Arthur had but little belief in popular gov- 
ernment. 

But however great the opposition to Governor Arthur in 
VanDiemen's Land may have been, the Australian Common- 
wealth to-day owes him one debt of gratitude. According to 
his biographer Arbuthnot, Arthur was the first person to sug- 

tlbid., p. 232. 
*Ibid., p. 227. 
**Molesworth: Speeches, p. 112. 



gest the advisability of a federation of all the Australian 
colonies. In this he was years in advance of his time. Still it 
is to be doubted whether any scheme of federation brought 
forward in Arthur's time could have been so complete and sat- 
isfactory as that consummated in 1901. 

After his return to England in March, 1837, Colonel 
Arthur received the Hanoverian Order of Knighthood. At the 
close of the same year he was appointed Lieutenant-Governor 
of Upper Canada and at the same time given "the military 
rank and command of a major-general on the staff." Sir 
George Arthur was now nearly sixty years of age and had 
been for over twenty-two years a colonial governor. During 
that period he had wielded almost despotic power. It was not 
at all likely that he would be inclined to look with favour upon 
the demands of the Upper Canadian Reformers for "Responsi- 
ble Government." 

On his arrival in Upper Canada Sir George Arthur was 
faced by a situation of the utmost delicacy. The rashness and 
wrong-headedness of Sir Francis Bond Head and of William 
Lyon MacKenzie had brought on the Upper Canadian Rebel- 
lion. The skirmish at Montgomery's Tavern occurred on 
Thursday, December 7th, 1837, and at the close of the day 
W. L. MacKenzie was a fugitive with a price on his head. The 
affair of the "Caroline" took place on December 29th. The 
destruction of this American steamboat resulted in considert 
able excitement in the United States and relations between the 
British and American governments became somewhat strain- 
ed. The arrest and trial of Alexander McLeod on the charge 
of murdering Amos Durfee, an American citizen, who was 
killed during .the raid on the "Caroline", further complicated 
the situation. It was not until 1842 that the incident was 
finally closed by a letter of apology addressed by Sir Robert 
Peel to Daniel Webster. 

Shortly after the destruction of the "Caroline" by the 
Canadians, MacKenzie's sympathizers, who had seized Navy 
Island in the Niagara River near the Falls, were forced to 
abandon their post, and the centre of disturbance shifted west- 
ward to the Detroit River. On this frontier an attack was 
planned by American sympathizers and disaffected Canadians 
against Fort Madden which was situated sixteen miles from 



8 

Windsor, Ontario. The attempt proved disastrous and result- 
ed in the capture of '"General" Theller and other American 
sympathizers, who were sent to Toronto for trial. On the 3rd 
of March, 1838, Pelee Island in Lake Erie was captured by 
another band of invaders who were driven off by a Canadian 
loyalist force under Colonel Maitland. This was the last 
serious attempt made from the United States before the ar- 
rival in Upper Canada of Sir George Arthur. 

The new Lieutenant-Governor then found himself in- 
volved in a peculiar international situation. Were these 
American sympathizers foreigners who were levying open war 
against the province committed to his charge, or were they 
merely marauders to be classes as pirates? This problem com- 
plicated another question of the utmost and pressing import- 
ance which was, in what way were the leaders of the late re- 
bellion to be treated? The Family Compact men and the 
Tories generally thirsted for their blood. Two of the leaders 
of MacKenzie's rebellion, Lount and Matthews, were already 
in prison and were shortly to be put on trial for their lives. 
The problem which Sir George Arthur had to settle was 
whether or not the extreme penalty of the law should be ex- 
acted. 

It was not to be expected that the ex-governor of a penal 
colony would show much mercy towards these men who had 
taken up arms against constituted authority. Nor did he. 
Lount and Matthews pleaded guilty and were on March 29th 
sentenced to death. The execution was to take place on April 
12th. Sir George Arthur had, of course, no part in sentencing 
them to death. That was done by Chief Justice John Beverley 
Robinson, who, Kingsford tells us, pronounced sentence "with 
that felicity of language ever at his command, but its tone was 
merciless." f Sir John Beverley Robinson's son and biogra- 
pher, Major-General C. W. Robinson, quotes from the Laiv 
Journal of Upper Canada for March, 1863, to show that "of 
the three individuals concerned, the Chief Justice was most 
certainly the most painfully affected." But whatever his pri- 
vate feelings may have been the Chief Justice was unbending 



fKingsford: History of Canada, Vol. X, p. 472. 



in his determination that no mercy be shown. He refused to 
advise the Lieutenant-Governor that Lount and Matthews be 
either pardoned or respited. J In this opinion of the Chief 
Justice the Attorney-General, Hagerman, concurred, and al- 
though there was great excitement in the province and "peti- 
tions signed by not less than 8,000 persons"* were presented, 
a reprieve was not granted and the two rebel leaders were 
executed on the day set. 

Two days later, on April 14th, Arthur penned a long dis- 
patch on the subject to Lord Glenelg. This document shows 
clearly how completely the new Lieutenant-Governor was in 
sympathy with the Family Compact and how entirely he failed 
to understand the point of view of the Reformers. 

The despatch professes to deal with the cases of Samuel 
Lount and Peter Matthews, "with a general view of the course 
to be taken with respect to persons committed for High 
Treason." Arthur begins by combatting a statement made by 
Lord Glenelg in a despatch dated January 6th, 1835, addressed 
to Sir John Colborne and marked "separate," to the effect that, 

"Her Majesty's Government could not fail to notice the 
wide difference which exists between the circumstances which 
have taken place in Lower Canada, and the recent events in 
Upper Canada. So far as can be collected from the informa- 
tion now before me, the chief motive which influenced the in- 
stigation of the disturbance in Upper Canada appe.ars to have 
been the view of plunder, and the offences which they per- 
petrated, seem to bear comparatively little of a political 
character." 

Lord Glenelg's grasp of the situation in Upper Canada 
may be inferred from the above passage and Sir George 
Arthur proceeds to enlighten him. Several sentences from his 
despatch deserve quoting in full, since they show how readily 
Sir George Arthur had embraced the Tory point of view. 

"In Upper Canada, the same pretensions to patriotism — 
the same assertions of republican Principles — the same accu- 
sations against the Government of Tyranny and Corruption — 
were put forth as the ground and justification of the Rebellion 



JCf. Arthur to Glenelg, April 14th, 1838, Canadian Archives G, 494. 
*Ibid. 



10 

as in the Lower Province. In Lower Canada, the right was 
insisted on, of the popular Branch of the Legislature sullenly 
to refuse acting as a legislative Body, and to bring to a com- 
plete stop all beneficial operations of Government, and to 
assert a supremacy inconsistent with the relations of a Colony 
with the parent state. 

'•In Upper Canada arms were taken up with the avowed 
purpose of assisting the Lower Canadians, and of asserting 
the same principles as applicable to this Colony. In Upper 
Canada the majority of the Assembly were attached to British 
Institutions; but this Majority was asserted to have been 
brought about by unconstitutional means on the part of Gov- 
ernment, and the use which the revolutionary Party had made 
of a majority in Parliament when they had it, was precisely 
the same here as in Lower Canada : namely, to coerce the Gov- 
ernment by a refusal to grant the necessary supplies. The 
Revolutionists in neither province hoped by themselves to 
overthrow the Government. They alike solicited foreign aid, 
and by its means expected to accomplish those designs. . . ." 

It may easily be seen from the above quotation that Sir 
George Arthur misunderstood the political situation in both 
Upper and Lower Canada. He failed entirely to appreciate 
the aims of the Reformers and considered them a grave men- 
ace to the security of British rule in Canada. So imbued was 
he with the point of view of what he terms the "Constitutional 
Party" that he believed the rebel leaders, including Lount and 
Matthews, had proved "not only that they were determined, 
with their own hands, to execute the foulest deeds in further- 
ance of their project of subverting the Government; but they 
had encouraged a class of dissolute and vagrant Foreigners to 
join in their enterprise, who, they well knew, would not hesi- 
tate to inflict upon the inhabitants of this Province, if they 
could have subjugated them, the most barbarous atrocities."! 

Under such circumstances, if the British connexion was 
to be preserved and law and order firmly re-established, it was 
necessary, Arthur considered, that several public examples 
should be made. Lount and Matthews had pleaded guilty of 
the heinous crime of rebellion against authority and were con- 

t Arthur to Glenelg: April 14th, 1838. 



11 

victed of high treason. The penalty was death and it made 
no difference to Sir George Arthur whether eight thousand or 
thirty thousand^ persons signed petitions for their reprieve. 
He could not understand that Lount and Matthews were in 
the eyes of a very large section of the province merely political 
prisoners who had been unfortunate enough to appeal to arms 
and be defeated by their opponents of the Tory party. The 
fact that the Lieutenant-Governor and the Executive Council 
were adherents of this Tory party did not, in itself, mean that 
Lount and Matthews were traitors. High treason is a very 
serious thing and so is armed rebellion, but the skirmish at 
Montgomery's Tavern could hardly be called a battle and there 
had been great provocation. 

In refusing to reprieve Lount and Matthews or even to 
postpone their execution until he had had an opportunity to, 
confer with the Colonial Office, Sir George Arthur made the 
chief blunder of his career as Lieutenant-Governor of Upper 
Canada. To be sure he acted in complete harmony with his 
Executive Council, whose advice he took in the matter, but 
he did not understand the real feeling of the province. It is 
doubtful whether any but the most rabid Tories favoured the 
exaction of the death penalty. The ends of justice could have 
been secured either by transportation or banishment. Nor 
did the Colonial Office entirely favour the executions of these 
men. On May 22nd Lord Glenelg wrote to Arthur as follows : 

"I have received your despatch of the 29th March, No. 1, 
reporting your proceedings up to that date, and the measures 
which you proposed to adopt with reference to the militia and 
volunteers, and stating that two of the most active of the per- 
sons engaged in the late revolt, having been brought to trial, 
had pleaded guilty and been sentenced to death, and assuring 
me that the most merciful consideration would be shown to- 
wards the prisoners generally. 

"I have laid your despatch before the Queen, and have to 
convey to you Her Majesty's approbation of the proceedings 
which you have reported. Since the receipt, indeed, of your 
despatch, intelligence has appeared in the public papers of the 



JBoth numbers are given — the higher number, 30,000, by MacKenzie, 



12 

execution at Toronto of Messrs. Lount and Matthews, the in- 
dividuals, as I presume, alluded to in your despatch. 

"I have every confidence that before consenting to such a 
means, you devoted to the cases of these persons a calm and 
dispassionate consideration, but as I have hitherto received 
from you no report of these executions or of the grounds on 
which you decided to let the law take its course, I abstain for 
the present from any further comment on them. 

"I am happy to learn, through the same" channel of in- 
formation, that no further executions were likely to take 
place." * 

Eight days later, on May 30th, 1838, after receiving Sir 
George Arthur's despatch of the 14th of April, Lord Glenelg 
again alluded to the execution and this time one feels that, in 
his own mild way, the Colonial Secretary is seeking to restrain 
Arthur : 

''I have received your despatch of the 14th April last 
(No. 4), reporting the executions, on the 12th of that month, 
of Lount and Matthews, who had been convicted, on their own 
confession, of 'high treason,' and explaining, at considerable 
length, the views adopted by yourself and the Executive Coun- 
cil with regard to these prisoners, and the considerations 
which appeared to you imperatively to demand that the law 
in the case should be allowed to take its course. 

"Her Majesty's Government regret extremely that a para- 
mount necessity should have arisen for these examples of 
severity. They are, however, fully convinced that you did not 
consent to the execution of these, individuals' without having 
given the most ample consideration to all the circumstances 
of the case, and they have no reason to doubt the necessity of 
the course which, with the entire concurrence of the Executive 
Council, you felt it your duty to adopt."t 

The Colonial Secretary did not censure Arthur for his 
conduct in the matter of the execution of Lount and Matthews 
but he added a significant paragraph regarding the treatment 
of other political prisoners. 



*Glenelg to Arthur, No. 70, 22 May, 1838; Brit. Pari, paper, 2, 1839, 
p. 279. 

tGlenelg to Arthur, No. 82, 30th May, 1838; op. cit. pp. 279-80. 



13 

"With respect to the disposal of the other prisoners, Her 
Majesty's Government cannot give you any specific instruc- 
tions, until they shall have received the report which you lead 
me to expect. But I cannot defer expressing our earnest hope 
that, with respect to these persons, your opinion that no fur- 
ther capital punishments will be necessary, may be acted on. 
Nothing would cause Her Majesty's Government more sincere 
regret than an unnecessary recourse to the punishment of 
death, and I am persuaded that the same feeling will influence 
not only yourself, but the Executive Council. The examples 
which have been made in the case of the most guilty will be 
sufficient to warn others of the consequences to which they 
render themselves liable by such crimes, and this object having 
been accomplished, no further advantage could be gained by 
intlict the extreme penalty of the law on any of their asso- 
ciates." t 

The death of Lount and Matthews seems to have satisfied 
were American citizens, were sentenced to transportation, 
the desire for revenge on the part of the extremists and a 
milder course of policy was then pursued by the Lieutenant- 
Governor and Executive Council. Several other leaders in- 
cluding "Generals" Sutherland and Theller, both of whom 
Theller had been sentenced to death and, according to his own 
account, was only saved from the gallows by the energetic 
agitation in his favour of the Irish section of the population. 
He has left a voluminous account of his captivity, including 
his sensational escape from the Citadel of Quebec, in his book, 
Canada in 1837-8, to which the reader is referred if he wishes 
to obtain a very highly-coloured bit of autobiography.* 

Theller's case brought up a very interesting question of 
International Law. He had been born in Ireland and had be- 
come naturalized as an American citizen. When put on trial 
for his life on a charge of high treason Theller pleaded that 
his American naturalization had rendered him no longer a 
British subject. Against him a precedent of 1747 was quoted 
to support the doctrine of "perpetual allegiance," i.e. "once a 
British subject, always a British subject." The jury brought 

tibid. 

*E. A. Theller, Canada in 1837-8, 2 vols., Philadelphia, 1841. 



' 14 

in the curious verdict that "if the prisoner was a British sub- 
ject he was guilty of treason." Chief Justice Robinson, acting 
in accordance with his belief in the doctrine of 'perpetual alle- 
giance' ruled that Theller was still a British subject and there- 
upon sentenced him to death. Under the circumstances to 
carry out the death sentence would have been very inadvisable. 
Pressure was brought to bear upon the Lieutenant-Governor 
and the Executive Council, and as a result a respite was 
granted "until Her Majecty's pleasure should be known." f 
Theller was soon after removed from Toronto to Quebec and 
detained there in the Citadel, from which he escaped. Suther- 
land was tried by court martial, imprisoned in Toronto and 
Quebec, and finally returned to American soil. 

These American prisoners were very embarrassing to the 
Upper Canadian authorities. There was still considerable 
excitement along the American frontier and the danger of in- 
vasion was by no means over. Lount and Matthews were con- 
sidered martyrs by many on the American side of the border. 
Highly coloured accounts of the execution appeared in the 
American press. Even the New York Sun took up the matter 
and recounted how Mrs. Lount on the day previous to her hus- 
band's execution "pleaded with Governor Arthur for hours for 
his life, and when she pointed to thirty thousand names who 
petitioned with her for the exercise of the royal prerogative, 
he coldly replied 'that he had not believed that Mr. Lount had 
so many friends in the province, and that there was the more 
necessity that he should be made an example to the rest.' " % 
Under these circumstances the execution of Theller would 
have added oil to the flame. 

The Congress of the United States passed a "Neutrality 
Bill" which cleared up the situation a great deal by denying 
official sanction to any schemes of invasion and enjoining neu- 
trality on all American citizens. The state authorities along 
the frontier also tried to prevent any movement of armed 
forces against Canada. Theller records how he successfully 
dodged the American authorities in making his attack on 
Fort Madden and how Governor Mason of Michigan was com- 



fTheller, Canada in 1837-8, Vol. I, p. 261. 
{Canadian Archives, Q 406, Pt. I, pp. 177-8. 



15 

ing down the river with a strong force when Theller and his 
friends approached the island of Bois Blanc which lies in 
Canadian waters. No doubt there often was a certain amount 
of laxity on the part of the American authorities, and Sir 
George Arthur finds occasion to condemn it at times, but the 
United States Government seems on the whole to have acted 
very wisely. The burning of the "Caroline," which it should 
be remembered was an American vessel attacked by a Cana- 
dian force in American waters, might easily have led to very 
serious consequences. If President Van Buren and his cabinet 
had wanted war it would have been quite possible to claim the 
destruction of the ill-fated "Caroline" as an overt act of hos- 
tility. Fortunately milder counsels prevailed and war was 
avoided. But this incident profoundly affected and prolonged 
the agitation on the American side of the border. 

On April 23rd, 1838, an "authorized agent" of the United 
States Government, Mr. Aaron Vail, who had recently been 
Charge d'Affaires in the American Embassy in London, ar- 
rived at Toronto. Mr. Vail, according to the official despatch 
of the British ambassador at Washington, Mr. H. S. Fox, was 
charged with the task "of inquiring into, and reporting upon, 
the actual condition of various individuals, who are now in 
confinement in Canada." Mr. Fox considered Mr. Vail a very 
fitting envoy and that his mission would be beneficial "by dis- 
sipating false rumours which tend to keep alive feelings of 
ill-will between the British and American inhabitants on the 
Canadian frontier." 

Aaron Vail's mission seems to have fulfilled expectations, 
for on April 25th Arthur wrote to Fox that it was quite im- 
possible that a more proper person than Mr. Vail could have 
been selected by the President, and that he trusted all the bene- 
fit would result from his mission as Fox had anticipated. Vail 
does not seem to have formed a very high opinion of the 
American prisoners, whom he described as "the 'scum' of the 
population." * Theller has left us an amusing account of how 
the Toronto gaol was carefully scrubbed in honour of Vail's 
visit and how the prison authorities hinted that "the Ameri- 
cans had better clean and dress up, as they might expect to 



^Arthur to Glenelg, 24 April, 1838, No. 8. 



' 16 

see some visitors, and probably hear some good news." f The 
prisoners poured out their tale of woe to Vail who "took notes 
and assured us that the government of the United States would 
strictly inquire into the matter." % Nothing much, however, 
seems to have resulted from the inquiry, since it was evident 
that Vail's mission was to smooth over affairs rather than to 
stir up further strife by issuing an inflammatory report on 
Canadian conditions. 

Soon after the departure of Mr. Vail occurred the trial 
and conviction of Charles Durand. Durand's case was pecu- 
liar, and noteworthy as illustrating the methods employed by 
Arthur and his Executive Council to stamp out disaffection. 
Durand was put on trial for high treason, the chief evidence 
against him being a letter which was found in his house among 
his papers addressed to W. L. MacKenzie, and which contained 
within it charges against the Executive Council and Family 
Compact generally. This letter was never sent and MacKenzie 
in his Gazette denies ever having seen it. It was, therefore, a 
high handed proceeding to sentence a man to death on the 
evidence of a private paper which was never published. Du- 
rand was afterwards respited and banished to the United 
States, but his trial and conviction on the 7th of May did not 
tend to increase the popularity of the Lieutenant-Governor and 
his Executive Council. 

Durand's letter certainly M'as written in no mild tone and 
it still breathes forth the spirit of disaffection. But it was 
never published and as such should not have been used to con- 
vict its author. The following sentences will serve as a sample 
of the whole : 

•The principles of the reformers are those of truth, are 
those that tend to promote the happiness of the many — instead 
of the few. Although in common with thousands of the old 
farmers in Canada, with thousands of the sons of U. E. Loy- 
alists, I was willing to petition the mother country for the re- 
dress of our political wrongs, and even to petition them again 
and again, yet when I see insult upon insult heaped upon the 
reformers of this Province: our Governors allowed with im- 

tTheller, Canada in 1837-8, Vol. 2, p. 9. 
Jlbid., p. 10. 



17 

punity to slander and laugh at the people and their House of 
Assembly — when I see Governors who have held up with both 
hands the gracious despatches of the deceitful and tyrannical 
Colonial Office — conspiring against the liberties of this colony 
by establishing a 'Dominant Church' and 'English Church Rec- 
tories' amongst us against our will and desire, raised, pro- 
moted and applauded for deceiving the people here, when I 
see Judges suspended and dismissed from their offices for 
voting for liberal men and the elective franchise, the only 
spark of liberty we can boast of, trampled down by office 
holders, and done away with by the Governor issuing thous- 
ands of patent deeds to his favorites and officials, I begin to 
ask myself, shall I, shall we, who have made the country w^hat 
it is, be used thus with impunity? Shall we, the native Cana- 
dians, the sons of U. E. Loyalists, be called aliens in the land 
of our birth, and by the fluttering officials that hang on the 
smiles of a Governor's brow — I say nay. I feel that we are too 
tame — that we have forgotten that we are free — that we are 
in America," * etc. etc. 

There is no need to quote more of this verbiage. The 
above is sufficient to show that Durand was able to "tear a 
passion to tatters, to very rags," and if he had ever had this 
letter published it would have doubtless "split the ears of the 
groundlings." The curious thing it that a man should be con- 
demned to death for writing such a. letter. Truly Arthur and 
his Executive Council lacked a sense of humour ! 

About this time a new movement against Canada was on 
foot in the United States. "Hunters' Lodges" were formed 
with the object "never to rest, till all tyrants of Britain cease 
to have any dominion or footing whatever in North America. "f 
This new organization seems to have originated in May, 1838, 
and to have spread rapidly, especially through the states bor- 
dering on Upper Canada. Lindsay tells us that at a conven- 
tion of the Hunters' Lodges of Ohio and Michigan held at 
Cleveland from September 16th to 22ndt of that year, seventy 

*Can. Archives, Q. 406, Pt. I, pp. 166-7. 
tQuoted: Kingsford, X, p. 457. 

{Lindsay: Life of W. L. MacKenzie (Makers of Canada Series), p. 
440, gives the month as September; Kingsford gives December. 



18 

delegates were present. At this meeting a republican govern- 
ment was appointed for Upper Canada, including a president 
and complete cabinet. A "republican bank of Upper Canada" 
was projected which was to issue a paper currency adorned 
with the heads of Lount, Matthews and Moreau who took part 
in the Short Hills affair in June, 1838, to which reference will 
shortly be made. But the members of the "Hunters' Lodges" 
though full of enthusiasm were short of funds, so the bank did 
not prosper. 

Before this grandiloquent meeting at Cleveland there had 
been several disturbances along the border. The first of these 
was the destruction on May 30th, of the Canadian passenger 
steamer '"Sir Robert Peel" at Wells' Island by American sym- 
pathizers. Wells' Island, one of the Thousand Islands, is situ- 
ated in American waters and so the authorities of New Ycrk 
state were to a certain extent negligent in allowing the inci- 
dent to occur. The destruction of the "Sir Robert Peel" seems 
to have been regarded by the. "patriots" who boarded her as 
an act of revenge for the burning of the "Caroline." But 
whatever the motives of those concerned the incident caused 
bad feeling along the border. An American steamer, the 
"Telegraph," was fired upon on June 2nd by the Canadian 
sentries at Brockville, the excuse given that the "Telegraph" 
had not answered when hailed by the sentries. An investiga- 
tion was held at which the authorities of St. Lawrence County, 
N.Y., were present, and it was ascertained that the sentries 
had acted without orders. 

A few days after these incidents a body of "patriots" 
under the leadership of James Moreau crossed the Niagara 
frontier in order to free Upper Canada. Moreau, who is called 
Morrow in the Canadian records, issued a proclamation which 
called upon the Canadians to come to his assistance and pro- 
claimed that this was the hour of their redemption. The 
answer of the "oppressed Canadians" was the engagement 
fought at the Short Hills on June 21st when the "patriots" 
were defeated by the Canadian militia. Moreau fled with a 
price on his head but was captured, tried and condemned to 
death. The Executive Council on July 26th refused to reprieve 
him since he was considered a proper case for capital punish- 
ment under an Act of the Parliament of Upper Canada passed 



19 

the previous session in order "to protect the Inhabitants of 
this Province against lawless aggressions from Subjects of 
Foreign Countries at Peace with Her Majesty." Moreau was 
accordingly executed at Niagara on July 30th. If Sir Georgp 
Arthur had had his way there would have been more execu- 
tions, but Lord Durham intervened. 

The next serious outbreak on the frontier was the attack 
of von Schoultz near Prescott on November 11th. The invad- 
ers seized a point of land on which a stone windmill had been 
built and fortified the place. An engagement ensued and the 
invaders were driven back to shelter within the windmill. On 
the 14th of November British reinforcements, including artil- 
lery, arrived, and two days later an attack was made at the dis- 
tance of only 400 yards. The garrison of the windmill then 
surrendered and nearly 160 prisoners were taken.* Von 
Schoultz and nine others were executed in Kingston. ' Von 
Schoultz was defended by Sir John A. Macdonald, then a young 
barrister just beginning his profession, but there was little 
that could be said in his defence. 

The last movement against Upper Canada took place on 
December 4th, when an attack was made on Windsor. This 
affair is thus described in the District General Orders of De- 
cember 10th, dated at Toronto:! 

"A large body of pirates and brigands, belonging to the 
hostile combination in the neighbouring country which has of 
late so much disturbed the peace of this province, after assem- 
bling in the neighbourhood of Detroit, and showing themselves 
at different points in the vicinity, at length had the hardihood 
to effect a landing near Windsor, about three miles from 
Sandwich, on the morning of the 4th instant, where they com- 
menced their work of destruction by burning a steam-boat 
called the ''Thames," and a house used as a barrack, making 
prisoners- a small but gallant party of militia quartered there- 
in, who, in defending themselves against the attacking ban- 
ditti shot their leader and eventually effected their escape." 

At Sandwich, Colonel Prince gathered a force of local 
militia, made "a spirited attack" and put the invaders to flight. 



*Arthur to Glenelg, 24th November, 1838, No. 92. 
fParl. Paper, 2, 1839, p. 370. 



• 20 

Four prisoners who had been taken were shot by orders of 
Colonel Prince, whose action was afterward severely censured 
by Lord Brougham and others. After the action at Sandwich 
the rest of the invaders either recrossed to American territory 
or else took to the woods, where many perished from the cold. 
So ended the last attempt at invasion of Upper Canada. Seven 
of those captured at Windsor were executed at London, includ- 
ing Daniel Davis Bedford and Albert Clark. The cases of 
these two men were discussed at two separate meetings of the 
Executive Council and it was decided that each of them 
should suffer the death penalty. In these decisions Sir George 
Arthur entirely concurred. The ex-governor of the penal 
colony w^as still exacting vengeance. In his defence it should 
be stated that the loyal section of the province, including the 
Executive Council, considered these men filibusters and mur- 
derers. 

The treatment meted out by the Executive Council to 
those British subjects, American citizens and others who were 
taken in arms against the government of Upper Canada has 
been discussed at some length. This has been done for two 
reasons, first that it bulks so large in Sir George Arthur's offi- 
cial despatches, and second because it shows what complete 
harmony existed betw^een Sir George and his Executive Coun- 
cil. Not even Sir Francis Head was more devoted to the Fam- 
ily Compact party. Sir George Arthur was by temperament 
and training entirely on the side of established authority and 
opposed to disaffection in all its forms. A strong conservative, 
he mistrusted the rule of the people and, therefore, opposed 
as stubbornly as possible the popular demand for Responsible 
Government. In this, as in other respects, Arthur found him- 
self completely at variance with the Governor-General, the 
Earl of Durham. 

It was unfortunate for Arthur that he was in Upper 
Canada during a period of unrest and transition. It w^as even 
more unfortunate for him that he was brought into contact 
with Lord Durham. Durham was a man of vision who sketch- 
ed out a mighty scheme which took years to put into actual 
practice. Arthur was a man of routine who could not appre- 
ciate either Durham or his visions. Above all he mistrusted 



21 

that pet project of Lord Durham, Responsible Government, 
and did not hesitate to say so. 

The appointment of the Earl of Durham as Governor- 
General of the British North American provinces was deeply 
resented by Sir George Arthur. By virtue of his commission 
Durham was empowered to assume the government of the 
province in which he might be and to retain it during his resi- 
dence in that province. During that period the functions of 
the Lieutenant-Governor were to be altogether suspended.! 
Due notice of this fact was sent each of the Lieutenant-Gover- 
nors of the British North American provinces including, of 
course, Sir George Arthur. After receiving this notice Sir 
George wrote on June 5th, 1838, to Lord Glenelg, complaining 
of this arrangement. He based his case against it on his ex- 
perience in Van Diemen's Land, which was during his tenure 
of office there a dependency of New South Wales, and called 
to Lord Glenelg remembrance a conversation he had had with 
him on the subject. In fact, as Arthur reminds Glenelg, the 
terms on which he consented to become Lieutenant-Governor 
of Upper Canada were that no change of that sort would be 
made. 

Three days after writing thus to Lord Glenelg Sir George 
Arthur received a circular letter from Lord Durham request- 
ing him "to enter into the most free and confidential communi- 
cation ... on all subjects affecting the province of Upper 
Canada, both as regards its internal condition and the state 
of affairs on the frontiers." * Lord Durham included in this 
letter the following paragraphs in order to allay the suspicion 
that might exist in Arthur's mind that he wished to diminish 
the Lieutenant-Governor's authority, 

"Your Excellency will of course understand that this re- 
quest does not contemplate any interference with your admin- 
istration of the government, but refers to the necessity which 
exists that I, as Governor-General of all the North American 
provinces, should be immediately informed of all matters of 
general interest affecting the high and important mission 
which has been conferred upon me. 



tCf. Glenelg to Du'rham, April 3rd, 1838, No. 8, Pari, paper 2, p. 12. 
*Durham to Arthur, 1 June, 1838; No. 1. Pari, paper, 2, p. 109. 



22 

"It will be my duty as well as my inclination to uphold 
your authority, not only from the respect which I must enter- 
tain for you personally, but from a due regard to the efficiency 
of the public service." 

This circular must have mollified Arthur somewhat, or 
else he was too well trained a public servant to show his inner- 
most feelings. At any rate he writes to Durham on June 9th 
as follows, 

"I sincerely thank your Lordship for your very kind de- 
claration of confidence in me and for the determination which 
your Lordship has expressed of upholding my authority. 

"It isi peculiarly gratifying to me to receive these assur- 
ances from your Lordship, for I ought in candour to say that 
from the time I received Lord Glenelg's 'Circular,' I have been 
very apprehensive of the embarrassment which might arise 
out of the new relative position in which I found myself most 
unexpectedly placed. The immeasurable distinction between 
your Lordship's station and my own must satisfy your Lord-- 
ship that this has proceeded from no vain jealousy, on per- 
sonal grounds, of the control of a superior. With diminished 
influence I feared the ability of being useful to Her Majesty's 
Government and to this province would be taken away ; for I 
have to co-operate with a legislature which must have a rea- 
sonable degree of confidence of my powers to act in union with 
them, and to fulfil my professions.!" 

To this rather naive letter Durham on June 18th replied 
stating even more clearly that no act of his would diminish 
Arthur's influence and authority in Upper Canada. He goes 
on to put his case as follows, 

"I repeat to you, that I have no wish to interfere with the 
local administration of the affairs of any of the provinces in- 
cluded in my general government. 

"Those functions will be vested, as before, in the Lieuten- 
ant-Governors ; but it is essential to the success of my mission, 
and to the due execution of my duties, more especially in the 
present disturbed state of our relations with the frontier 
population of the United States, that I should be promptly and 



fArthur to Durham, June 9th, No. 1, Pari, paper 2, p. 116. 



23 

directly made acquainted with all events bearing on those im- 
portant questions." 

Arthur seems to have followed out Durham's instructions 
as regards frontier troubles to the letter, since we find the fol- 
lowing postscript added to his despatch of June 22nd, 1838 
(No. 4) : 

"P.S. I make now no communications myself to the 
American Government, and have troubled your Lordship with 
all these particulars, as a representation will of course come 
with far greater force from your Lordship. "J 

In July, 1838, Lord Durham made a flying visit to Upper 
Canada, His object seems to have been to ascertain for him- 
self existing conditions in this province and to form his own 
opinion as to what policy it would be best to pursue. He 
writes thus to Lord Glenelg from Montreal on July 6th : 

"Lower Canada is perfectly free from internal troubles, 
and her frontier is not menaced by the Americans ; but Upper 
Canada, by the last accounts from Sir George Arthur, is in a 
very unsatisfactory state, both as to domestic dissensions and 
border incursions. I am anxious, therefore, to proceed there 
as soon as possible." * 

Lord Durham left Montreal on July 10th, arrived in King- 
ston late on the night of the 11th, and then proceeded to Nia- 
gara. At Niagara Sir George Arthur met him. From Niagara 
Lord Durham journeyed to Toronto where Sir George was 
also present to receive him formally, along with the mayor and 
corporation and the citizens of the provincial capital. On the 
19th of July Durham returned to Kingston and thence down 
the St. Lawrence to Montreal where he arrived on July 24th. 
His visit to Upper Canada had been short but he had covered 
a great deal of territory and seems to have been pleased with 
what he saw. 

If one of Lord Durham's objects in making his hurried 
trip to Upper Canada was to obtain a better understanding 
with Sir George Arthur he must have been disappointed since 
shortly after his return to Lower Canada their relations be- 
came somewhat strained. The reason for this was the action 



tP.P. 2, p. 125. 

^Durham to Glenelg, No. 24, P. P. 2, p. 139. 



24 

of Sir George Arthur and his Executive Council in sentencing 
to death Samuel Chandler and Benjamin Waite for their part 
in the Short Hills affair. The families of these men had ap- 
pealed to Durham "for an extension of the Royal mercy" and 
"for the grant to them of Her Majesty's pardon,** Durham 
asked Arthur for particulars, reminding him that Lord 
Glenelg had written on the 3rd of April asking that "the ut- 
most lenity, compatible with public safety, should be exercised 
towards the insurgents." 

To this Sir George Arthur replied on August 20th, com- 
plaining that Durham's action was "depriving the officer ad- 
ministering the Government of Upper Canada of the powers 
expressly vested in him by the Royal Commission." f Arthur 
also claimed that Durham" had misapprehended the intention 
of the instruction of the Secretary of State" and Lord Gelnelg 
had in a despatch of July 12th referred him "to the power of 
pardoning for treason vested in the officers administering this 
government under your Lordship's commission as Governor- 
in-Chief." 

Durham in his turn maintained that all he wished was to 
exercise the superintending authority he possessed as Gover- 
nor-General. He admitted that Arthur had the power of 
pardoning for treason delegated to him, but would argue that 
that power was exempt from "the general subordination to 
instructions from the Governor-General." $ Durham then 
proceeds to give his opinion of Sir George Arthur's policy in 
the following terms. 

"Your Excellency's explanation of the policy which you 
had determined on adopting with regard to the prisoners con- 
victed at Niagara does not immediately strike me as indicat- 
ing a course so obviously correct that I can dispense with the 
information which I required in my despatch of the 16th 
instant. I cannot quite admit the propriety of selecting some 
one subject of Her Majesty to share the fate of Morreau, the 
leader of the expedition, who happened to be a citizen of the 
United States. The fate of Her Majesty's subjects should be 

**Durham to Arthur, 16 May, 1838, pp. 2, p. 163. 
flbid., Arthur to Durham, 20th Aug., 1838. 
JDurham to Arthur, Aug. 24th, 1838; Ibid., p. 164. 



25 

determined on a view of their own conduct, and of the cir- 
cumstances which have led the juries to accompany their 
verdict of guilty, in every case, with a recommendation to 
mercy." 

A further despatch of Lord Durham to Arthur on Sep- 
tember 18th went into the case of Jacob Beamer in some de- 
tail. Beamer had been singled out by the Executive Council 
as the scape goat and was alone to suffer the death penalty. 
To this Durham would not agree but requested that the case 
be referred to Lord Glenelg. This despatch is interesting since 
it shows that the Executive Council of Upper Canada was at 
this time none too friendly towards Lord Durham and was 
quite willing to stir up strife between the Governor-General 
and the Lieutenant-Governor, 

In the meantime the correspondence between Arthur and 
Durham had continued at some length and not always with 
the best of feeling. But no actual breach seems to have oc- 
curred and at length the vexed problem of the political prison- 
ers seemed likely of solution. A general amnesty was to be 
proclaimed for all except a certain few who were to be named 
in the proclamation. But by this time Lord Durham was pre- 
paring to return to England. 

Among the despatches sent by Sir George Arthur to the 
Earl of Durham is one dated July 9th, 1838, which deals with 
the political condition of Upper Canada. This letter estab- 
lishes without a doubt the close adherence of Sir George 
Arthur to the Family Compact party, all the more so because 
Sir George tries to claim his independence of all party affilia- 
tions. It also shows that the Lieutenant-Governor had re- 
ceived instructions from the Home Government "to pursue the 
policy and measures of Sir Francis Head." This Arthur 
apparently had attempted to do in so far as his support of the 
dominant party in the province was concerned. He had fallen 
in completely with their way of thinking and had failed to dis- 
tinguish between reformers and rebels. He even warned Lord 
Sydenham that Dr. Egerton Ryerson was "a dangerous man" 
chiefly because Ryerson supported Mr. Bidw^ell, who had been 
Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and had been forced to 
leave the province on account of persecution by Sir Franciis 
Head and his Executive Council after MacKenzie's Rebellion. 



26 

In this letter of July 9th Sir George Arthur attempts to com- 
bat the opinions of Mr. Isaac Buchanan, a reformer, who had 
been presenting his views on the Upper Canadian political 
situation to Lord Durham. According to Arthur, Mr. Bu- 
chanan was endeavouring to prejudice Durham's mind 
"against some of the most respectable and most highly 
esteemed men in the province," and the Lieutenant-Governor 
hastened to defend his friends. One or two .sentences from 
this despatch deserve quotation as showing Arthur's attitude 
towards the self -constituted aristocracy of Upper Canada. 

"In this Colony, as in other countries, respectable station, 
united with superior talents and good conduct, gives a certain 
degree of influence which is natural and salutary, and it would 
be of all things ungracious and discouraging, as well as im- 
politic, if the Government were to manifest a jealousy of an 
influence so honorably acquired. It is, so far as I have been 
able to judge, most unobtrusively exercised and I am satisfied, 
from what I have experienced, that so far as he can con- 
scientiously do so, your Lordship will have the most cordial 
co-operation of the Chief Justice and of all the Family Com- 
pact, in all its ramifications throughout the Province." * 

In this same despatch Arthur informs Durham that he 
had "amicably discussed with the Leaders of each Denomina- 
tion, the long contested Clergy Reserves Question," and had 
the intention of "bringing in a Bill to reinvest those lands in 
the Crown "if better means could not be found of providing 
a settlement. He also thought that he would be able to carry 
any measure he desired successfully through the Provincial 
Parliament. It should be remembered that the ultra-tory 
assembly of 1836, at whose elections Sir Francis Head so dis- 
tinguished himself, was still in existence and that Sir George 
Arthur thought that it would pass any measure brought for- 
ward by the government. Already on a previous occasion Sir 
George had written to the Governor-General on the same sub- 
ject of the Clergy Reserves and had expressed a hope that 
asperities had been already softened and that at the next 
meeting of the Legislature he would be able to see this long- 
pending contest terminated upon nearly the same principle as 

*Arthur to Durham, July 9th, 1838, Can. Archives, G. 494, p. 507. 



it had been settled in Van Diemen's Land during his adminis- 
tration there. But in this pious hope Arthur reckoned with- 
out the opposition of the Reformers. 

The aim of Sir George Arthur and the Executive Council 
was "to secure the removal of the Clergy Reserves question 
from the hostile arena of the Upper Canada Legislature to 
the friendly atmosphere of the English House of Commons, 
and the still more friendly tribunal of the House of Lords — 
where the bench of bishops would be sure to defend the claims 
of the Church to their royal patrimony." t This project the 
Reformers and opponents of the Clergy Reserves were deter- 
mined to resist to the uttermost. A long controversy raged 
during 1838 and 1839. In December, 1837, a bill had been 
brought forward to reinvest the Reserves in the Crown, but 
a despatch from the Home Government which arrived soon 
after showed that the British Parliamentary authorities had 
no desire to interfere in the settlement of this vexed question. 
During 1838 Sir George Arthur still hoped that the scheme 
for reinvesting the Clergy Reserves in the Crown would carry 
as the references in his despatches, cited above, show. Such 
a bill would have suited the members of the Executive Council 
and Family Compact generally. It would have meant that 
the Church of England would have still profited at the expense 
of the other denominations. As it was, in 1837 out of a total 
of £10,852 lis 8d the Church of England received £7,291 5s Od, 
the Church of Scotland £1,425, the United Synod of Upper 
Canada £636 6s 8d, and the Roman Catholic clergy £1,000.$ 
The Wesleyan Methodists and other denominations did not re- 
ceive one penny from the ''one-seventh of all Crown lands set 
aside for the support of a Protestant clergy." 

Upon the reassembling of the Upper Canadian Legisla- 
ture in February, 1839, Sir George Arthur stated that "the 
settlement of this vitally important question ought not to be 
longer delayed" and hoped that the contending parties could 
be amicably adjusted, but added meaningly that if all their 
efforts failed it would only remain to reinvest the Reserves in 



fRyerson: Story of My Life, p. 225. 

$These figures are taken from a return to be found in the Canadian 
Archives, Q. 407, Pt. I, pp. 108-13. 



28 

the hands of the Crown. Various bills on the subject were 
introduced and finally the Legislative Council amended one 
sent to it by the Assembly in such a way as to put complete 
control of the Clergy Reserves in the hands of the Imperial 
Parliament. This bill as amended was passed in the Assembly 
in a thin house by a majority of one. Sir George Arthur and 
his party had triumphed by a narrow margin. But the royal 
assent was never given to the bill owing to an objection raised 
in England that ' the Upper Canadian Legislature, being a 
subordinate authority, could not make such a delegation to the 
Imperial Parliament. 

A compromise bill which was devised to meet the approval 
of the majority of people in Upper Canada was submitted to 
the House of Assembly in January, 1840, but it was the work 
not of Sir George Arthur, but of Lord Durham's successor, Mr. 
Poulett Thomson (Lord Sydenham). It provided that the 
remainder of the land should be sold and that the annual pro- 
ceeds of the fund, when realized, be distributed one half to 
the Church of England and the Presbyterians and one half to 
the other denominations who wished to share it. This bill was 
passed in Upper Canada and sent to England w^here it met its 
death blow in the House of Lords. The vexatious Clergy Re- 
serves problem still remained unsettled. 

In the matter of the Clergy Reserves, Sir George Arthur 
had shown himself the uncompromising ally of the Family 
Compact. He was to show it once more in his attitude towards 
the reunion of the provinces and the introduction of Responsi- 
ble Government. 

The reunion of the provinces was urged by Lord Durham 
in his Report and was favoured by a large majority of the 
inhabitants of Upper Canada. It was opposed by the Family 
Compact, supported as usual by Sir George Arthur. But the 
feeling for union was so strong that on March 23rd, 1839, 
three resolutions in favour of the reunion of the provinces 
were carried by the Upper Canadian Legislature. Four days 
later, on March 27th, fourteen qualifying resolutions were 
passed by the Assembly. These resolutions, if embodied in the 
Act of Union, would have placed the balance of power in the 
hands of the British population of the united province. 

A committee of the Legislative Council was appointed at 



29 

the same time to inquire into Lord Durham's Report and to 
put forward their side of the case. This was very ably done 
in a document dated May 11th, 1839, and approved by the 
Legislative Council. In this report on the Report Lord Dur- 
ham's "great panacea for all political disorders 'Responsible 
Government' " * was attacked and certain inaccurate state- 
ments were challenged. The blame for the recent troubles in 
Upper Canada was cast entirely upon the Reformers and the 
question propounded : "Is it because reformers, or a portion 
of them, can command the sympathies of the United States, 
and of Lower Canadian rebels, that the internal affairs of a 
British colony must be conducted so as to please them?" 

With these sentiments Sir George Arthur heartily con- 
curred. He was entirely opposed to ''Responsible Government" 
and still feared disaffection in the provinces. During the 
early months of 1839 the trials of the political prisoners had 
continued and had attracted much attention on both sides of 
the border. There was still considerable excitement in the 
province and riots occurred in some places. In one of these 
which took place at Stone's Tavern, Percy Township, Northum- 
berland County, on June 5th, 1839, the reformers carried "a 
red flag on which were written or printed the words, 'Lord 
Durham and Reform.' " f Incidents such as this increased Sir 
George Arthur's mistrust of Lord Durham's schemes for the 
better government of Canada, and on July 2nd we find him 
writing to the Marquis of Normanby, Lord Glenelg's successor, 
as follows : 

"I have all along informed Her Majesty's Government 
that it is absurd to think of Upper Canada as containing a 
whole community of loyalists. There is a considerable section 
of persons who are disloyal to the core; reform is on their 
lips, but separation is in their hearts. These men having, for 
the last two or three years, made a "responsible government" 
their watchword, are now extravagantly elated because the 
Earl of Durham has recommended that measure. 

"They regard it as an unerring means to get rid of all 
British connexion, while the Earl of Durham, on the contrary, 

*Egerton and Grant: Canadian Constitutional Development, p, 176. 
fParl. papers (Canada), 1840, Pt. II, p. 142. 



30 

has recommended it as a measure for cementing the existing 
bond of union with the mother country." 

These few sentences throw great light on Sir George 
Arthur's attitude on the question of 'Responsible Government.' 
As usual, the Reformers are annexationists. It was the usual 
tactics of the dominant party to call them so and to include 
as disloyal all those who favoured the cause of Reform. Of 
course Sir George Arthur, from the nature of his position, was 
supposed to be moderate in his political views, but he does 
yeoman service for the Family Compact in trying to impress 
upon the authorities in England that the Reformers were dis- 
loyal. It is impossible to state what percentage of the Re- 
formers were actually disloyal, but it must be remembered, as 
Egerton Ryerson has told us, the great body of the Reformers 
took no part in MacKenzie's Rebellion except to suppress it. 
The bulk of moderate opinion in the province sided neither 
with the annexationists nor with the Family Compact, but 
readily embraced the suggestions set forth in Lord Durham's 
Report. With these moderate reformers Sir George Arthur 
was soon at variance. 

In the month of August, 1839, Sir George received a series 
of resolutions supporting Lord Durham's Report and Re- 
sponsible Government passed at a meeting of freeholders and 
inhabitants of the Gore District held on July 27th. This meet- 
ing resolved that the House of Assembly did not represent the 
wishes or sentiments of the province ''particularly in its late 
Report of its committee, purporting to be the Report of the 
House of Assembly in answer to Lord Durham's Report on the 
State of the Province." It also resolved "that the Report of 
the Earl of Durham, in all its material points, has been re- 
ceived by an overwhelming majority of the people of Upper 
Canada with the most abundant gratification" and "that this 
meeting is of opinion that a responsible government, as recom- 
mended in Lord Durham's Report, is the only means of re- 
storing confidence, allaying discontent, or perpetuating the 
connexion between Great Britain and this colony." $ 

All this was wormwood and gall to Sir George Arthur, 
who hastened to reply to this address. In his answer he at- 



JParl. paper (Canada), 1840, Pt. II, p. 181. 



31 

tacks Responsible Government and states "that the proposed 
plan would lead to a state of things inconsistent with the re- 
lations of this colony, as a dependency of the British Crown." 
This was a bold statement for the Lieutenant-Governor to 
make and it was soon to land him into difficulties since the 
British authorities were prepared to carry out Lord Durham's 
schemes. Mr, Poulett Thomson was selected as Governor- 
General and under him Sir George Arthur was once more to 
act as a subordinate Lieutenant-Governor.* 

It v/as a curious arrangement, since Arthur was known 
to be opposed to the very scheme of government which Poulett 
Thomson was being sent out to initiate. But Sir George 
Arthur was not unwilling to co-operate with the new Gover- 
nor-General. He met Poulett Thomson at Montreal on October 
25th and conferred with him on the subject of Upper Canada. 
It was decided that the Legislature of that province should be 
summoned for December 3rd and that Poulett Thomson would 
visit Upper Canada about the 18th of November. The Gover- 
nor-General was determined to open the session of the Legis- 
lature in person. This determination on his part was largely 
the outcome of his conversations with Sir George Arthur, who 
strongly urged upon him the desirability of so doing. 

As a result of this meeting between the Governor-General 
and Lieutenant-Governor, Poulett Thomson was present to 
open the Legislature on December 3rd. After that date Sir 
George Arthur's power in Upper Canada became entirely 
secondary to that of Poulett Thomson. He still acted as 
Lieutenant-Governor in the absence of the Governor-General 
but his term of real authority in Upper Canada ended on 
November 22nd, 1839, when the new Governor-General as- 
sumed the government of the upper province. 

Sir George Arthur remained in Upper Canada until 1841, 
when the Act of Union came into force and the two provinces 
surrendered their separate existence. He then returned to 
England where his services in Canada were recognized by the 
bestowal upon him of a baronetcy. In June, 1842, he was 
appointed Governor of the Bombay Presidency in India, which 



*For a full account of the relations between Poulett Thomson and 
Sir George Arthur the reader is refererd to Shortt, Sydenham, pp. 153-162. 



32 



office he held until his retirement in 1846. Had his health 
warranted the acceptance of so difficult a post he might then 
have become Governor-General of India. After returning to 
England Sir George Arthur was made a Privy Councillor and 
was honoured by the University of Oxford with the honorary 
degree of Doctor of Civil Law. He died on September 19th, 
1854. 

Sir George Arthur was a true type of the old colonial 
governor. He was unfortunate in that he was unable to realize 
that the days of colonial dependency were numbered, and that 
the future belonged to the advocates of self-government. His 
long experience as a colonial governor under the old regime, 
probably told against Arthur in his administration of Upper 
Canada just as it was of value to him as Governor of Bombay. 
His support of the Family Compact was as natural and sincere 
as his mistrust of Responsible Government. Of his upright- 
ness and integrity there could be no doubt. Although his treat- 
ment of the political prisoners shows him to have been merci- 
less, on occasion he was known as a gentle and kind man. He 
tried to do what he considered right but he lacked vision. 
Throughout his administration in Upper Canada he was at- 
tempting to bolster up a dying cause. His one fatal defect was 
that he could not see that the political future of Canada lay 
in the proper interpretation and elaboration of the principles 
laid down in Lord Durham's Report. 

Walter Sage. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




